I swear, I am not posting this data again after this.. M42 HaRGB.
I've posted this data set 3 times now with varying levels of processing applied..
This time I think its as good as its going to get without a more experienced image processor having a stab at it... I cant do any more to it without making it worse...
Im actually pretty impressed... I personally like the coloring, the red in the background is a problem, however I didnt know how to boost the red in the Ha areas without making the sky background too red... that being said.. HaRGB might be half the reason. Any input? ?
As before.. 8x600sec + 13x30sec Ha and 17x240sec + 10x30sec color images...
Stacked each set individually, processed each set individually.. masked the cores in both the Ha and RGB data seperately, then used the completed Ha image as Lum, the Ha : Color ratio is about 50:50... (again, any input??)
All coments and ideas on further bettering the image are welcome... More to the point, they are encouraged..
Well... For the last time (I hope.. )
My M42 HaRGB blend.
I hope to do a small galaxy next.. I think its time to introduce the QHY8 to the C11 again...
Thanks for reading my little story..
1st image is the current version... 2nd is the previous attempt.
Well Alex except for the trap region the latest version has a very nice colour balance. The Core is very hard to get natural but it doesn't look too bad in your latest version. You will lokk back at this image each season and hopefully you will notice improvement that you didn't realise was happening
And please, no apology necessary regarding reprocesses, as far as I am concerned this is not a forum just for grand "I now present" reputation on the line releases only. We all love this stuff we do so I don't see why we shouldn't all enjoy reprocesses and comment on them
I've posted this data set 3 times now with varying levels of processing applied..
This time I think its as good as its going to get without a more experienced image processor having a stab at it... I cant do any more to it without making it worse...
I agree with Mike - no apologies required for perfectionism .
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
Im actually pretty impressed... I personally like the coloring, the red in the background is a problem, however I didnt know how to boost the red in the Ha areas without making the sky background too red... that being said.. HaRGB might be half the reason. Any input? ?
Is the background too red? There's a lot of nebulosity in this area - be careful not to remove real information from your image. In any case, assuming you're using Photoshop, there are a few ways you can fix a red background. A curves adjustment layer can work (working mostly at the black end of the red channel). A colour balance layer or even a levels layer (or some combination of these) will also work. Always use layer masks though when you want to selectively alter an image. If you want to work on darker areas only, use an inverse layer mask (ie using a negative image in the mask). If you want to work on the brighter areas, use a positive layer mask (a positive image in the mask). Another trickier way to create a mask on the area you want to adjust is to use the colour selection tool (adjusting the fuzziness appropriately) and then create an adjustment layer. The seleced areas become the white areas in the mask (the areas that will be affected by the adjustment). If you want to NOT affect the selected areas, simply invert the mask. Careful though, you can wreck the colour balance if not done carefully.
BTW, I won't tell you how many times I have to tweak an image before I get it just right. Even after I post an image, I usually have to do a bunch of subtle changes. I guess it's part of the artist in every astro-imager!
Agreed Mike - seeing sequential processing iterations is what it's all about Id've though too. It's great to see a learning process in full swing because we can all get something from it.
yeah the flats didnt seem to work so well with the data as they are the first flats I've taken... I think that they were too bright...
I think the nebula's luminance is better in the new image, but the core blending could be better.. its really hard to judge one against the other as they both have their merits...
Purely aesthetically speaking, the newer one is nicer in my eyes.
Hi Alex. I have to agree with Mike. Thats a new one for me isn't it Mike. I for one hang the reprocessing a bit but am just as guilty as the next bloke. Who cares anyway. If we weren't interested we wouldn't look.
As for this image it is looking pretty good.
A little thing I found in nebulosity which may be of interest is the menu item which allows you to keep only the Lum data and discard the colour data from an image. Thus you can make a true Lum layer from a Ha RGB image easily.
Alex, great work on both images, everytime I redo my M42 I see something new it's like a never ending story, I'm now thinking of getting HA and SII filter (already have the OIII) and then give M42 another shot.
Rob, This is a repro of that same data you saw on the screen the other day.. (lol, and the image you saw was about 12~15% of full image size)
This one at full res is very impressive for me.. I'm very happy with it indeed.
It may even be my best image... either this or my Eta Carine.. Not sure.. I like M42 more, because it was the first DSO I ever saw through a scope.. However the Eta image is perhaps better... Hard to say, but im happy nonetheless..
Thanks for the comments everyone, Very encouraging!
Fred & H -I think its come from the flats to be honest... it was my first time shooting flats, and I think they may have been too bright... I'll have to give them another go....
Great repro. I like the new version. 
.
